Agenda item

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement.

5.1  PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey dwelling to form one bedroom house.

  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

 ? Revisions to the front facade removing slatted metal louvres and replacing them with brick; panels removed from windows. No further consultations were required on the amendments as the design changes were not considered to be substantial to require further reconsultation.

5.2  The Council’s Senior Planning Officer introduced the planning application as published.

5.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from two local residents speaking in objection to the application. They raised a number of concerns about the proposals including the impact on the conservation area, the removal of an existing tree, loss of light/overshadowing, loss of privacy and the height of the proposed structures.

5.4  Three Hackney Councillors spoke next in objection to the application. They had been approached by local residents with a number of concerns about the proposed development including the undermining of local plan LP47 and the impact on biodiversity, to the lack of a Basement Impact Assessment to the loss of garden space. There were also concerns expressed about a green space potentially being paved over which would not allow for the adequate drainage of surface water.

5.5  An architect and the owner of the site spoke next in support of the proposals. They acknowledged that the site under discussion was a constrained site and they highlighted that the proposals were not overbearing. On the issue of biodiversity the architect highlighted that a bio-diverse, substrate-based extensive green roof had been conditioned to aid in surface drainage. The owner gave a brief overview of the history of the site and they explained that they were keen to move forward with the development of the site.

5.6    The Sub-Committee meeting entered the discussion phase where the  following points were highlighted:

·  The Planning Service acknowledged that there had been existing high boundary treatments around the site for some time. Originally the development would align with number 3 Filey Avenue’s rear extension and it was this extension’s windows that the Planning Service had considered, because of issues around enclosure and the impact on light. It was felt that height of the proposed development was not considered to be significantly affected, therefore it was concluded that there could not be any significant impact on the adjoining properties in terms of light because the proposed development was situated due north of them. The proposed development would mostly sit within the existing height of the boundary treatments and that there would be an increase in the height with the new development but that this would be minimal in comparison to the existing fencing and would not have an adverse impact on light or outlook. A gap of one metre was concluded by the Planning Service to be not be so significant that it would result in unacceptable sense of enclosure;

·  The Council’s Drainage and Conservation, Urban Design and Sustainability (CUDS) teams were satisfied with the measure in place to mitigate against sustainable drainage and any flood resilient measures. There were two conditions in the application that covered these matters;

·  On the issue of biodiversity, it was recognised that a green space was being lost but that land had been used for other activities for some time. It was noted that the proposals did include a green roof and that the Planning Service was of the view that it would address the requirement  for an improvement to biodiversity through LP47;

·  The Sub–Committee noted that the proposed development would not be able to go ahead until the Council’s Planning Service were satisfied with a number of mitigation measures for sustainable drainage and flood resilience being in place which would then be viewed by the Planning Service’s expert team;

·  Infill developments such as the one before the Sub-Committee was supported by Local Plan policy LP12. This type of windfall site, particularly in an area like Hackney where sites were quite hard to come by would provide a windfall housing delivery had been identified previously and was in the Local Plan;

·  Looking at neighbouring properties in the area, the objectors took the view that those properties were not a useful comparison because number 11 Filey Avenue, for example, was more set back from the road;

·  The Council’s Design team supported this type of infill development as long as it was subservient to the neighbouring developments and was of the right design and character. They were felt that it was not dissimilar to other developments that had been built in rear gardens;

·  Currently the site of the proposed development was a fly tipping space and did not presently enhance the character of the conservation area;

·  On the issue of drainage on site, the Planning Case Officer re-iterated that conditions were included as part of the proposals for the submission of a drainage report and the installation of a green roof as mitigating measures;

·  Regarding a potential  risk of subsidence, the Council’s Planning Service was satisfied that the proposals and the changes that had been made were acceptable to mitigate against any risk;

·  The structural suitability of the site was not a material planning issue;

·  The removal of the existing sycamore tree on site was proposed because, despite outward appearances showing it to be healthy, it was actually suffering from hardwood decay affecting its water intake.  At some point the tree would fall over;

·  The square boxes on the roof plan were solar panels which would stand on top of the green space. The roof was a combination of skylights and solar panels and more than 50% of the roof was dedicated to green space with the solar panels laid on top. The green space would be approximately 25 square metres (sqm);

·  The constraints of the existing site would prevent  the  proposed development from being set back any further from the road;

·  On the issue of the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), though there was no BRE report on access to daylight and sunlight, calculations had been undertaken and  the Planning Service had concluded that the proposals on balance  met the VSC; with a 0.2% shortfall being negligible;

·  The Planning Service had concluded  that 25 sqm of green space was acceptable;

·  The Planning Service was satisfied with the level of light that the proposed development would allow for. The Sub-Committee noted that measures would be implemented that would also increase the light e.g. installation of light wells and skylights;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that a green roof was not a garden. It would assist with biodiversity, surface water drainage and heat for the building. However, it was recognised that it was limited.  The roof space in its entirety was 44 sqm;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that  the land of the existing site was a separate section of land and did not form part of the garden;

·  The Planning Officer reiterated that the proposals did meet the requirements of Local Plan policy LP47 and, as previously mentioned, the site was very constrained. The Planning Service had concluded that because of the mitigating measures that were proposed they could balance out any loss in biodiversity on site.

Vote*:

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Sadek, Cllr Race and Cllr Webb

Against:  Cllr Levy

Abstention:  Cllr Narcross and Cllr Young

*Cllr Potter did not participate in the discussion and the vote for agenda item 5 (see 1.2 above for further details).

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement.

There was a break of ten minutes.